Older People's Family Contacts and Long‐term Care Expenditure in OECD Countries: A Comparative Approach Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent decades there has been a suggestion that public and private long‐term care (LTC) expenditure might be replacing traditional family care for older people. The decline of family contact is known to be more advanced in some OECD countries than others, with southern Europe identified as where family contact is still strong. This article explores at a country level whether there is an association between levels of expenditure on long‐term care and the availability of family contacts. Qualitative Comparative Analysis is used as a comparative method, so as to use national quantitative indicators with a small sample of countries. An association between higher levels of family contact and lower levels of expenditure on LTC is suggested, but it is weakened by a number of untypical cases. Countries that defy this relationship have government care policies that seek to promote informal social care through the family contact that continues to be available. Austria, Canada, Great Britain and Japan are discussed in this context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it